Homeopathy.... At last
Discussion
ReallyReallyGood said:
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if such a placebo did genuinely make some percentage of patients feel better - thus preventing them from undertaking the time and resource for further investigations at greater expense to the NHS - isn't it money well spent?
But this a trap that a large quantity of the research falls into. Placebo effect is real. If you ever measure two therapies side by side, and on one side the doctor or other health care professional spends a bit longer with you, either doing the procedure, or explaining it to you, that seems to increase the effectiveness of the intervention. Two people given antibiotics for a chest infection. One consultation lasts twenty minutes, and one lasts three minutes. In the twenty minute consultation the antibiotics will be reported to be more effective.Even the effect of examining someone when the examination actually has no effect on whether the patient was going to receive the treatment or not because it was all decided on history, has a beneficial effect.
Placebo is real.
richie99 said:
julian64 said:
Sorry you didn't get the point of my post
Placebo is real, but spending millions on drugs that have no effect is the most expensive way possible to supply the placebo effect.
No real axe to grind either way but as I understand it, there are many very expensive 'real drugs', you know from proper pharma companies and everything, that are scarcely better than placebo, and only then on the basis of selecting the trials that show the best results. That's a much better way of wasting serious money, with the added advantage that the side effects can create problems the patient didn't have in the first place, or even kill them. Placebo is real, but spending millions on drugs that have no effect is the most expensive way possible to supply the placebo effect.
If so then you may want to have a read of this website
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance
Its quite a large english organisation tasked with sorting out the waste you describe, with 'no axe to grind either way'. If you want to rubbish their efforts then you'll need a little more than your opinion on 'real drugs'.
Fastpedeller said:
eldar said:
What was the condition?
endometriosisAnd laparoscopy is minimally invasive surgery. Your wife would have two surgical wounds on her abdo. each about a centimeter long. Hardly butchery.
Even hysterectomy would have no scar as unless your wife was very overweight it would be a vaginal hysterectomy.
Way before this your wife would have been offered tablet hormone treatment over a year or possibly an interuterine coil.
?
Fastpedeller said:
julian64 said:
Erumm surgery isn't the first line cure for endometriosis. Usually a laparoscopy for ablation is a last resort after quite a lot of medical treatment.
And laparoscopy is minimally invasive surgery. Your wife would have two surgical wounds on her abdo. each about a centimeter long. Hardly butchery.
Even hysterectomy would have no scar as unless your wife was very overweight it would be a vaginal hysterectomy.
Way before this your wife would have been offered tablet hormone treatment over a year or possibly an interuterine coil.
?
She was offered hormones, which she didn't want because of the many side effects, and because she was in hospital every month, high as a kite on pethadine for 3 or more days the Hysterectomy was offered. Hysterectomy would have been life-changing, as we wanted children, and our beautiful daughter is now 17 years old! I have NO DOUBT the homeopathy (or the 'psychic power') of the homeopath did the trick. As I said before, if this is all in the mind then homeopaths who are able to do this are IMHO very useful - After all as long as the patient gets better, that's what's important. And laparoscopy is minimally invasive surgery. Your wife would have two surgical wounds on her abdo. each about a centimeter long. Hardly butchery.
Even hysterectomy would have no scar as unless your wife was very overweight it would be a vaginal hysterectomy.
Way before this your wife would have been offered tablet hormone treatment over a year or possibly an interuterine coil.
?
The same is true of a homeopath. Just because they keep your wife occupied while nature takes its course doesn't mean they are worth the money.
Should the NHS invest in smarties and charge the taxpayer as we know the placebo effect works?
This whole thread is about anecdotal vs science.
Science is not a few people getting together and deciding what works anecdotally. That is the sort of science that takes place in mud huts in undeveloped countries where they don't have access to real science. Witchcraft and faith healing work anecdotally, just google them.
I'm not telling anyone they can't go to a faith healer, homoeopath, witchcraft, reflexologist, horologist, accupuncture. In fact I would encourage people to find their own way through life with whichever lifeboat gives them the most pleasure to cling to.
This thread isn't about telling people what to do. Its about telling people what the state shouldn't be funding. Up till now, way into the era of science we have had the scientific community guiding doctors in great detail through which drugs to use, and which to ignore in every situation. As a doctor I have to make a case for each drug I prescribe in terms of efficacy and cost. This all gets totted up and reviewed at the end of each year, and I am carefully managed with targets along these lines for payment. I accept this as I understand the taxpayers need for value for their tax money.
On the other hand homoeopaths just get given a bunch of taxpayers cash based on ..........what?
Only based on the fact that approximately half their patients will walk out of the clinic suggesting they are feeling better and anecdotally they think this is linked to their clinic visit?
Science is not a few people getting together and deciding what works anecdotally. That is the sort of science that takes place in mud huts in undeveloped countries where they don't have access to real science. Witchcraft and faith healing work anecdotally, just google them.
I'm not telling anyone they can't go to a faith healer, homoeopath, witchcraft, reflexologist, horologist, accupuncture. In fact I would encourage people to find their own way through life with whichever lifeboat gives them the most pleasure to cling to.
This thread isn't about telling people what to do. Its about telling people what the state shouldn't be funding. Up till now, way into the era of science we have had the scientific community guiding doctors in great detail through which drugs to use, and which to ignore in every situation. As a doctor I have to make a case for each drug I prescribe in terms of efficacy and cost. This all gets totted up and reviewed at the end of each year, and I am carefully managed with targets along these lines for payment. I accept this as I understand the taxpayers need for value for their tax money.
On the other hand homoeopaths just get given a bunch of taxpayers cash based on ..........what?
Only based on the fact that approximately half their patients will walk out of the clinic suggesting they are feeling better and anecdotally they think this is linked to their clinic visit?
BlackLabel said:
Seems legit.
And this guy is a member of the health select committee and the science and tech committee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)And this guy is a member of the health select committee and the science and tech committee.
Scotsman said:
Chinese herbal medicine can help treat cancers and HIV, a Conservative MP has said.
David Tredinnick said many of his constituents are only alive today because they have been treated with alternative medicine.
And the MP for Bosworth urged ministers to spend more NHS money on therapies such as homeopathy and acupuncture to treat patients.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/tory-mp-traditional-chinese-medicine-can-treat-cancer-and-hiv-1-4312683David Tredinnick said many of his constituents are only alive today because they have been treated with alternative medicine.
And the MP for Bosworth urged ministers to spend more NHS money on therapies such as homeopathy and acupuncture to treat patients.
Yep he's the sort of guy everyone should listen to about medicine. Fully qualified in medicine with his business degree in capetown and his 'can do' opinions about the inability of blood to clot at the full moon
Derek Smith said:
There is loads on the internet with regards to the testing of placebos against homeopathy.
There was one strange case where placebos worked despite the person not knowing they were receiving anything. There was another bit of research where homeopathy worked less well than placebos. That result confused the hell out of the researchers.
There was one chap on here who was at an A&E when a chap was brought in with, essentially, an overdose of placebos. That was strange. There was an article in New Scientist where similar examples were quoted. The strangest thing about placebos is that they are stranger than anyone anticipated.
Dangerous stuff in fact.
Its all essentially rubbish reporting though, I think you assume the tablet is the placebo when in fact it probably isn't.There was one strange case where placebos worked despite the person not knowing they were receiving anything. There was another bit of research where homeopathy worked less well than placebos. That result confused the hell out of the researchers.
There was one chap on here who was at an A&E when a chap was brought in with, essentially, an overdose of placebos. That was strange. There was an article in New Scientist where similar examples were quoted. The strangest thing about placebos is that they are stranger than anyone anticipated.
Dangerous stuff in fact.
Derek Smith said:
I've had a quick search for the post but can't find it. From memory the chap was brought in with low blood pressure after a suicide bid by taking all the pills he'd been issued with for the test. When it was discovered they were placebos he was told that the pills were harmless. A little while later his blood pressured rose and he was released.
There is no doubt that placebos can make a person feel ill as well as better. One only has to search under nocebos to show this. This more or less supports the contention it is all in the delivery.
Its still just anecdotal. Someone who is in that frame of mind to overdose is a very poor historian. You have no idea what other drugs he may have taken. You may even be describing a panic attack from someone who believes they have taken something that will kill them.There is no doubt that placebos can make a person feel ill as well as better. One only has to search under nocebos to show this. This more or less supports the contention it is all in the delivery.
As I said before the placebo effect is real but its not usually to do with the tablets given. Its the trust the patient has in the doctor, the time the doctor takes to explain things to the patient, the patients expectations and beliefs that a patient has regarding the treatments or the person giving them.
If I'm dressed like a goth and give a sugar pill to someone walking into a nightclub telling them the pill will give them a good time, or if I'm dressed as a doctor the patient has known for a long time and give the m the same pill in a surgery setting telling them it will make them better but nauseous for a few days. Both people will get different experience from taking the same pill.
Interestingly the longer I spend with them the more likely they are to get the side effect I suggest to them. Taking a long time to explain the likely side effects of a drug to patients affects not only the likelihood of them reporting the side effect but the severity score they will give it. More likely to get it, more likely to report it as less severe
.
.
.
If you have to look for anything homeopathy can teach modern medicine about health its that your average homeopath spends much more time with a patient than the NHS do. The NHS is absolute **** at explaining things to patients
XM5ER said:
Can I suggest you read the books Influence and Pre-suasion by Robert Cialdini .
Possibly as its an interesting subject, then I read this on amazon'You'll learn the six universal principles, how to use them to become a skilled persuader—and how to defend yourself against them. Perfect for people in all walks of life, the principles of Influence will move you toward profound personal change and act as a driving force for your success'.
Then I thought..... possibly not.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff